Australopithicus Sediba: Another Relative We Never Had

Recently we wrote about Woman X, an alleged human ancestor that was concocted from a small part of a pinky finger found in the Altai mountains in Siberia (Butt, 2010). A few months before that, we demolished both Ardi and Ida, which was not difficult, since both were foundationless gimmicks that reeked of propaganda masquerading as science (Butt, 2009; Lyons and Butt, 2009). The desperate rate at which the evolutionary science community is pumping out “human ancestors” belies the fact that thinking people are not buying the unfounded concept of human evolution. The cycle of reading about an “amazing” new ancestor, only to discover that the fossils prove nothing, are misrepresented and misinterpreted, and are obviously trumped-up to bolster a decaying corpse of a false theory that was long ago destroyed, is becoming increasingly tiresome.

It is a fact that alleged human evolution defies all the known, provable, testable laws of nature (Harrub and Thompson, 2003). This fact has not dissuaded the evolutionary community from parading yet another “human ancestor” before the world. The latest creature has been dubbed Australopithecus sediba, which means “southern ape, wellspring” (Schmid, 2010). Two skeletons, purportedly of a female, in her late 20s or early 30s, and a male, who may have been eight or nine years old, were discovered in a pit in South Africa (2010).

Are these creatures “links” between monkeys and man? Richard Potts stated: “The ‘missing link’ made sense when we could take the earliest fossils and the latest ones and line them up in a row. It was easy back then” (as quoted in Schmid, 2010). But Schmid went on to write: “But now researchers know there was great diversity of branches in the human family tree rather than a single smooth line” (2010, emp. added). [NOTE: Ironically, just last year, the evolutionary community was using the “missing link” terminology to describe Ida. So, Potts’ “back then” was not so far back as he would like us to believe.] In truth, however, researchers know no such thing. The “single smooth line” idea was jettisoned, not because evolutionists learned more about an alleged human-ape ancestry, but because it became impossible to fit the fossils together in a rational way that could be sustained by the evidence. There were so many contradictions, overlapping dates, and incorrect conclusions, the evolutionary “bush” idea was interjected to “keep the dream alive.”

Australopithicus sediba is yet another example of the mess we have been seeing in the past. For instance, the fossils are supposedly dated at 1.95-1.78 million years ago. Yet this date cannot be scientifically validated. The dating methods used to pinpoint such a precise figure are fraught with error, and have been shown to be incorrect (Morris, 1994; DeYoung, 2005). Furthermore, we are told that the creature has a mosaic of primitive and advanced features. One of the “primitive” features is a small brain, but the researchers noted that “the shape of the brain seems to be more advanced than that of Australophithecines” (Schmid, 2010). What, exactly, does an “advanced brain shape” look like? The only way to determine an “advanced” shape would be to assume that humans evolved from apes and then to suggest that anything closer to the human shape is “advanced.” Yet, if researchers are trying to use these fossils to prove that humans are related to apes, they cannot be granted that assumption in order to link humans to apes. In addition, many modern monkeys have “primitive,” small brains. If there are monkeys alive right now that have small brains like the one found, how can such be considered a “primitive” characteristic, without assuming human evolution—the concept that is purportedly being proven.

Furthermore, since only a few of these creatures have been discovered, “there is no way to know if the gene pool died out or was passed on to others” (Schmid, 2010). Basically, then, we are told that we cannot know if these creatures evolved into humans, or if they simply went extinct. Yet if they have such an “advanced brain” and then they died out, where would our “advanced brains” come from—if not from these creatures? You see the way evolutionists cover their tracks. If they do not find means to link this creature to humans in a way that the public will swallow, then they will relegate it to a side branch, so it is not in-line with true human ancestry, and parade another creature before the public in a few months (or weeks at the current rate).

The amount of speculation and lack of substantiation in the field of paleontology is exasperating. Words and phrases such as “may have,” “might show,” “possibly are,” “could probably show,” “there is no way to know for sure, but,” are the tell-tale signs of unsubstantiated opinion that pepper the human-evolution writings like spots on a Dalmatian. Let’s cut through such mealy-mouth jargon and confidently affirm what we know scientifically as fact. Every experiment ever done on life in nature shows that life can come only from previously existing life of its own kind. No known mechanism exists by which genetic information can be added to a single-celled organism in order for it to eventually evolve into a human. Human consciousness defies all evolutionary based explanations, as does human morality. All available scientific, historic, and biblical information forces an honest observer to conclude that humans were created by a supernatural Creator, and they did not evolve from lower mammals. We will keep repeating these truths as long as the evolutionary community keeps trumpeting new “relatives” we never had.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.